Cost-Effectiveness of Reclassifying Triptans in Australia: Application of an Economic Evaluation Approach to Regulatory Decisions.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a common, chronic, disabling headache disorder. Triptans, used as an acute treatment for migraine, are available via prescription in Australia. An Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) committee rejected reclassifying sumatriptan and zolmitriptan from prescription medicine to pharmacist-only between 2005 and 2009, largely on the basis of concerns about patient risk. Nevertheless, pharmacist-only triptans may reduce migraine duration and free up healthcare resources. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of reclassifying triptans from prescription-only to pharmacist-only in Australia. METHODS: The study design included decision-analytic modeling combining data from various sources. Behavior before and after reclassification was estimated using medical practitioner and patient surveys and also administrative data. Health outcomes included migraine frequency and duration as well as adverse events (AEs) discussed by the TGA committee. Efficacy and AEs were estimated using randomized controlled trials and observational studies. RESULTS: Reclassifying triptans will reduce migraine duration but increase AEs. This will result in 337 quality-adjusted life-years gained at an increased cost of A$5.9 million over 10 years for all Australian adults older than 15 years (19.6 million). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated to be A$17 412/quality-adjusted life-year gained. CONCLUSIONS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is likely to be considered cost-effective by Australian decision makers. Serotonin syndrome, a key concern of the TGA committee, had little impact on the results. Further research is needed regarding pharmacist-only triptan use by migraineurs currently using over-the-counter medicines and by nonmigraineurs, the efficacy of triptans, and the risk of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular AEs and chronic headaches with triptans.

Modeling the economic impact of linezolid versus vancomycin in confirmed nosocomial pneumonia caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

INTRODUCTION: We compared the economic impacts of linezolid and vancomycin for the treatment of hospitalized patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)-confirmed nosocomial pneumonia. METHODS: We used a 4-week decision tree model incorporating published data and expert opinion on clinical parameters, resource use and costs (in 2012 US dollars), such as efficacy, mortality, serious adverse events, treatment duration and length of hospital stay. The results presented are from a US payer perspective. The base case first-line treatment duration for patients with MRSA-confirmed nosocomial pneumonia was 10 days. Clinical treatment success (used for the cost-effectiveness ratio) and failure due to lack of efficacy, serious adverse events or mortality were possible clinical outcomes that could impact costs. Cost of treatment and incremental cost-effectiveness per successfully treated patient were calculated for linezolid versus vancomycin. Univariate (one-way) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The model allowed us to calculate the total base case inpatient costs as $46,168 (linezolid) and $46,992 (vancomycin). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio favored linezolid (versus vancomycin), with lower costs ($824 less) and greater efficacy (+2.7% absolute difference in the proportion of patients successfully treated for MRSA nosocomial pneumonia). Approximately 80% of the total treatment costs were attributed to hospital stay (primarily in the intensive care unit). The results of our probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that linezolid is the cost-effective alternative under varying willingness to pay thresholds. CONCLUSION: These model results show that linezolid has a favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio compared to vancomycin for MRSA-confirmed nosocomial pneumonia, largely attributable to the higher clinical trial response rate of patients treated with linezolid. The higher drug acquisition cost of linezolid was offset by lower treatment failure-related costs and fewer days of hospitalization.

Linezolid: an effective, safe and cheap drug for patients failing multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment in India.

Linezolid is identified as an effective drug with which to treat patients failing multidrug-resistant (MDR)-tuberculosis (TB) treatment. However, cost and safety are the concerns. In India, the average price of a 600-mg pill of linezolid is less than one US dollar, much cheaper than most of the third-line drugs. A prospective study of 29 MDR-TB treatment failure patients (16 with laboratory-proven extensively drug-resistant (XDR)-TB and the remaining 13 with MDR-TB with resistance to any quinolone but sensitive to injectables) was carried out in Delhi, India. All patients received daily unsupervised therapy with linezolid, one injectable agent, one fluoroquinolone and two or more other drugs. Patients received a median of six anti-mycobacterial agents. Besides linezolid, capreomycin, moxifloxacin, levofloxacin and amoxycillin-clavulanic acid were used in 41.4%, 58.6%, 41.4%, and 79.3% of patients. Out of a total of 29 patients, 89.7% patients achieved sputum smear and culture conversion; 72.4% showed interim favourable outcome; 10.3% died, 6.8% failed and 10.3% patients defaulted. Linezolid had to be stopped in three (10.3%) patients due to adverse reactions. The outcome of treatment of 16 XDR-TB patients was comparable to the other 13 MDR-TB patients. Linezolid is an effective, cheap and relatively safe drug for patients failing MDR-TB treatment, including those with confirmed XDR-TB.

Cost avoidance using linezolid for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in a specialist diabetes foot clinic.

OBJECTIVES: An audit was performed to determine whether linezolid (Zyvox, Pharmacia Limited, Sandwich, UK) was being used in accordance with local guidelines and if this had an effect on admissions for diabetes foot ulceration. METHODS: Seven hundred and four patient records from 2005 to 2010 in the Diabetes Foot Clinic, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh were audited for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections, admissions and antibiotic use. RESULTS: Seventeen percent (n = 119) of patients had proven MRSA infections. Of these, 28% (n = 33) were prescribed linezolid, 94% (n = 31) for up to 14 days and none for >28 days. Eight (24%) had repeated courses. Ninety-one percent (n = 30) either avoided admission or were discharged early with resolution of infection. Four out of 33 patients had reversible blood abnormalities. The total cost for linezolid over this period was £58 000. However, 420 bed days, costing £500/day, were avoided, producing a total saving of £210 000 on inpatient costs. CONCLUSIONS: Linezolid guidelines reduced lengths of stay, inpatient costs and overuse of this expensive but effective treatment.

Pharmacotherapy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia.

OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence for pharmacologic agents available in the treatment of nosocomial methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pneumonia. DATA SOURCES: A search of PubMed (1975-July 2012) was conducted using a combination of the terms methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, pneumonia, nosocomial, vancomycin, linezolid, telavancin, ceftaroline, tigecycline, and quinupristin/dalfopristin. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Randomized comparative clinical trials, meta-analyses, and review articles published in English were included. A manual review of the bibliographies of available literature was conducted and all relevant information was included. Observational and in vitro studies were incorporated as indicated. DATA SYNTHESIS: Pharmacotherapy for the treatment of nosocomial MRSA pneumonia is limited. Vancomycin has been the treatment of choice for several years. Linezolid has demonstrated similar efficacy to vancomycin in randomized clinical trials and recent data have suggested that it may be superior in some cases, although there are limitations to this conclusion. Telavancin has also demonstrated similar clinical efficacy to vancomycin; however, the drug is not commercially available in the US. Other agents with MRSA activity include ceftaroline, clindamycin, quinupristin/dalfopristin, and tigecycline, although the evidence for their use in nosocomial pneumonia is limited. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the currently available evidence and cost-effectiveness, vancomycin should continue to be the drug of choice for most patients with nosocomial MRSA pneumonia. Linezolid is a reasonable alternative for patients with treatment failure while receiving vancomycin, isolates with vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentrations over 2 µg/mL, allergic reactions, or vancomycin-induced nephrotoxicity.

Treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections with a minimal inhibitory concentration of 2 µg/mL to vancomycin: old (trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole) versus new (daptomycin or linezolid) agents.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend that agents other than vancomycin be considered for some types of infection due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) when the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) to vancomycin is 2 µg/mL or more. Alternative therapeutic options include daptomycin and linezolid, 2 relatively new and expensive drugs, and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (TMP/SMX), an old and inexpensive agent. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical efficacy and potential cost savings associated with use of TMP/SMX compared to linezolid and daptomycin. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted at Detroit Medical Center. For calendar year 2009, unique adults (age >18 years) with infections due to MRSA with an MIC to vancomycin of 2 µg/mL were included if they received 2 or more doses of TMP/SMX and/or daptomycin and/or linezolid. Data were abstracted from patient charts and pharmacy records. RESULTS: There were 328 patients included in the study cohort: 143 received TMP/SMX alone, 89 received daptomycin alone, 75 received linezolid alone, and 21 patients received a combination of 2 or more of these agents. In univariate analysis, patients who received TMP/SMX alone had significantly better outcomes, including in-hospital (p = 0.003) and 90-day mortality (p < 0.001) compared to patients treated with daptomycin or linezolid. Patients receiving TMP/SMX were also younger (p < 0.001), had fewer comorbid conditions (p < 0.001), had less severe acute severity of illness (p < 0.001), and received appropriate therapy more rapidly (p = 0.001). In multivariate models the association between TMP/SMX treatment and mortality was no longer significant. Antimicrobial cost savings associated with using TMP/SMX averaged $2067.40 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: TMP/SMX monotherapy compared favorably to linezolid and daptomycin in terms of treatment efficacy and mortality. Use of TMP/SMX instead of linezolid or daptomycin could potentially significantly reduce antibiotic costs. TMP/SMX should be considered for the treatment of MRSA infection with MIC of 2 µg/mL to vancomycin.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of linezolid, daptomycin, and vancomycin in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: complicated skin and skin structure infection using Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) complicated skin and skin structure infection (cSSSI) is a prominent infection encountered in hospital and outpatient settings that is associated with high resource use for the health-care system. OBJECTIVE: A decision analytic (DA) model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of linezolid, daptomycin, and vancomycin in MRSA cSSSI. METHODS: Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis were used to generate efficacy and safety parameters for a DA model using published clinical trials. CEA was done from the US health-care perspective. Efficacy was defined as a successfully treated patient at the test of cure without any adverse reaction. Primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio between linezolid and vancomycin, daptomycin and vancomycin, and linezolid and daptomycin in MRSA cSSSI. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model. RESULTS: The total direct costs of linezolid, daptomycin, and vancomycin were $18,057, $20,698, and $23,671, respectively. The cost-effectiveness ratios for linezolid, daptomycin, and vancomycin were $37,604, $44,086, and $52,663 per successfully treated patient, respectively. Linezolid and daptomycin were dominant strategies compared to vancomycin. However, linezolid was dominant when compared to daptomycin. The model was sensitive to the duration of daptomycin and linezolid treatment. CONCLUSION: Linezolid and daptomycin are potentially cost-effective based on the assumptions of the DA model; however, linezolid appears to be more cost-effective compared to daptomycin and vancomycin for MRSA cSSSIs.

Multiresistant bacteria and current therapy - the economical side of the story.

UNLABELLED: Severe infections with multiresistant bacteria (MRB) are a medical challenge and a financial burden for hospitals. The adequate antibiotic therapy is a key issue in multiresistant bacteria management. Several major cost drivers have been identified. Remarkably drug acquisition costs are not necessarily included. Most significant are the length of stay in hospital, the hours of mechanical ventilation and the time treated on an intensive care unit. - In a systematic review of the literature the following aspects were investigated: - Do generic treatment strategies contribute in cost savings? - Are there specific results for recent antibiotics? - Early adequate and effective antimicrobial treatment, switch from i.v. to oral therapy, adjusted duration of therapy and adherence to guidelines have been found to be successful strategies. - Looking at specific antibiotics, the best evidence for cost-effectiveness is found for Linezolid in treatment of cSSTI as well as in HAP. Daptomycin shows good economic results in bloodstream infections, so possibly being a cost-effective alternative to vancomycin. Looking at tigecycline the published data show neither higher costs nor savings compared to imipeneme. Doripenem as one of the newest therapy options has proven to be highly cost-saving in HAP when compared with imipenem. However, most analyses are based on pharmacoeconomic modelling rather than on directly analysing trial data or real life clinical populations. - CONCLUSION: Using modern antibiotics in whole is not more expensive than using established therapies. Modern antibiotics are cost-effective and sometimes even cost-saving. This is especially true if an effective therapy is initiated as early as possible.

Cost-effectiveness of linezolid vs vancomycin in suspected methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia in Germany.

BACKGROUND: The oxazolidinone antibiotic linezolid has demonstrated efficacy in treating infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). In a retrospective analysis of two prospective randomized clinical trials in patients with nosocomial pneumonia (NP), initial therapy with linezolid produced significantly better clinical cure and survival rates than vancomycin in the subset of patients with documented MRSA infection. This study was designed to evaluate the economic impact of these clinical outcomes from the perspective of the German health care system to determine the use of these regimens in the light of limited resources and rising costs. METHODS: A decision-analytic model using clinical trial data was developed to examine the costs and outcomes of treatment with linezolid or vancomycin in hospitalized patients with NP caused by suspected MRSA. The model followed an average patient from initiation of empiric treatment until treatment success, death, or second-line treatment failure. Local treatment patterns and resource use were obtained from a Delphi panel. Costs were taken from published sources. Outcomes included total cost per patient, cost per additional cure, cost per death avoided, and cost per life-year gained. RESULTS: The model calculated that linezolid was associated with an 8.7% higher cure rate compared with vancomycin (73.6% vs 64.9%, respectively). Average total costs per episode for linezolid- and vancomycin-treated patients were 12,829 and 12,409, respectively. Death rates were 13.2% lower with linezolid than with vancomycin (20.7% vs 33.9%), resulting in an average of 2.3 life-years gained per linezolid-treated patient in a 65-year-old cohort (14.0 life-years vs 11.7 life-years). With linezolid, incremental costs per death avoided and per patient cured were 3,171 and 4,813, respectively. The base case estimated a similar mean length of stay for both drugs (11.2 vs 10.8 days). One-way sensitivity analyses did not change the overall results. CONCLUSION: The model estimated a higher clinical cure (+8.7%) and survival (+13.2%) for linezolid compared with vancomycin at an incremental cost of 420 per treatment episode. The cost-benefit profile suggests that linezolid could be considered a cost-effective alternative to vancomycin in the treatment of patients with NP caused by suspected MRSA in Germany.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of linezolid vs. vancomycin in treating methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus complicated skin and soft tissue infections using a decision analytic model.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of vancomycin vs. linezolid in complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs) with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) using a decision analytic (DA) model. METHODS: A DA model was created to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of four treatment strategies in the treatment of MRSA cSSTIs: linezolid intravenous (i.v.) to oral (LIN), vancomycin i.v. inpatient treatment (VAN-1), vancomycin i.v. switch to oral linezolid (VAN-2) and vancomycin i.v. switch to outpatient vancomycin i.v. (VAN-3). Probabilities were determined from published clinical trials. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the various strategies were the primary outcome. Univariate (one-way) sensitivity analysis and second-order Monte Carlo simulation (using 10,000 trials) were conducted for all parameters used in the model. RESULTS: The DA model predicted that VAN-3 was the most cost-effective strategy from the base-case analysis. Average cost-effectiveness ratio for this strategy was $26,831.42/cure. Univariate sensitivity analysis revealed that the model was sensitive to linezolid duration of inpatient stay and duration of i.v. vancomycin before switching to an oral agent or discharged with outpatient i.v. administration with vancomycin. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that VAN-1 was dominated by LIN, but LIN was only 30% cost-effective compared with VAN-3. Acceptability curve showed that the probability of choosing LIN as a cost-effective strategy compared with VAN-1, VAN-2 and VAN-3 increased as the willingness-to-pay (WTP) increased. CONCLUSION: Alternative vancomycin strategies (VAN-2 and VAN-3) that take advantage of early discharge opportunities were cost-effective compared with LIN. However, LIN's higher efficacy would make it cost-effective for payers with a high WTP threshold.

Cost-effectiveness of linezolid versus vancomycin for hospitalised patients with complicated skin and soft-tissue infections in Germany.

This study used a decision analytic model approach to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of linezolid versus vancomycin in the empirical treatment of complicated skin and soft-tissue infection (cSSTI) due to suspected methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) from the German hospital and health care system perspective. Clinical probabilities were obtained from trial data, resource utilisation and MRSA prevalence rates were obtained through German physician interviews, and costs from published sources were applied to resource units. Outcomes included total cost/patient and cure. The estimated first-line cure rate for linezolid-treated patients was 90.1% versus 85.5% for vancomycin; total cure rates after two lines of treatment were 98.4% and 98.1%, respectively. Average total cost/episode was 8,232 euro for linezolid versus 9,206 euro for vancomycin. The model outcomes were sensitive to changes in length of stay (LOS), isolation days, rate of confirmed MRSA and price of linezolid. Linezolid was expected to result in a shorter intravenous treatment duration and shorter LOS that offset its higher acquisition cost versus vancomycin in cSSTI in Germany.

Cost-effectiveness of linezolid versus vancomycin for hospitalized patients with complicated skin and soft-tissue infections in France.

UNLABELLED: Studies have shown similar clinical cure rates and shorter length of hospitalization when using linezolid compared to vancomycin in patients with complicated skin and soft-tissue infections due to suspected or proven methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). OBJECTIVE: This study had for aim to compare the cost-effectiveness of linezolid versus vancomycin in French healthcare settings. METHOD: A decision-analytic model followed an average patient from the initiation of an empiric treatment until cure, death or second-line treatment failure. A clinical data probability was obtained from clinical trials, resource utilization data (including treatment duration and length of hospitalization) and prevalence of MRSA was obtained from a Delphi panel, and costs from published sources. RESULTS: First-line cure rate for linezolid-treated patients was 90.7% versus 85.5% for vancomycin; the total cure rates after two lines of treatment were 98.5% and 98.0%, respectively. The average total cost was 7,778euro for linezolid versus 8,777euro for vancomycin. The mean estimated length of hospitalization after two lines of treatment was 10.7 days for linezolid versus 13.3 days for vancomycin. The increased effectiveness and reduced cost lead to more frequent prescription. This did not change after one-way sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Linezolid may be considered as a cost-effective treatment for patients with complicated skin and soft-tissue infections suspected to be MRSA related in France.

A comparison of costs and hospital length of stay associated with intravenous/oral linezolid or intravenous vancomycin treatment of complicated skin and soft-tissue infections caused by suspected or confirmed methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in elderly US patients.

OBJECTIVES: This study compared the costs and hospital length of stay (LOS) and duration of intravenous therapy associated with intravenous/oral linezolid or intravenous vancomycin treatment of complicated skin and soft-tissue infections (cSSTIs) caused by suspected or confirmed methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in elderly US patients. METHODS: Data were obtained from elderly (>or=65 years) US patients participating in a multinational randomized trial of hospitalized cSSTI patients treated with linezolid or vancomycin. Costs (hospital and total) from the provider perspective were estimated for intent-to-treat (ITT) patients (ie, all those receiving >or=1 dose) using national 2003 costs (ward, medication, intravenous administration). LOS for inpatient care, duration of intravenous linezolid and vancomycin therapy (ITT and MRSA groups), and cure rates were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 717 enrolled subjects, 163 (23%) were elderly (87 linezolid, 76 vancomycin), with no significant differences in demographic characteristics between the linezolid and vancomycin groups. Mean hospitalization and total costs were lower with linezolid compared with vancomycin (hospitalization: US $4510 vs US $6478, P<0.001; total: US $6009 vs US $7329, P=0.03). Linezolid was associated with a 3.5-day reduction in LOS and a 9.5-day reduction in the duration of intravenous therapy compared with vancomycin in the ITT group (both, P<0.001). Cure rates were comparable between linezolid and vancomycin in both the ITT group (88.7% vs 81.4%, respectively) and the MRSA group (80.0% vs 71.4%). In multivariate analyses of the ITT group, linezolid patients were 57% less likely than vancomycin patients to have a LOS >7 days (odds ratio = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.21-0.87). Chronic renal failure, malnutrition, and a diagnosis of infected ulcer predicted an LOS >7 days. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of data from elderly patients with cSSTI caused by suspected or confirmed MRSA, linezolid treatment was associated with reductions in the costs of care, LOS, and duration of intravenous treatment without affecting the clinical outcomes. Although the use of a subset of patients from a larger trial that did not focus on the elderly can be seen as a study limitation, the elderly represent an important population when evaluating health care resource use and costs.

Linezolid for the treatment of Nocardia spp. infections.

OBJECTIVE: To review the available evidence regarding the use of linezolid for the treatment of Nocardia spp. infections. DATA SOURCES: Data were identified through a search of MEDLINE (1966-May 2007), American Search Premier (1975-May 2007), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1960-2007), Science Citation Index Expanded (1996-2007), and Cochrane Databases (publications archived until May 2007) using the terms linezolid and Nocardia. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Prospective and retrospective studies, case reports, case series, and in vitro studies were eligible for inclusion if they used linezolid for nocardiosis regardless of site of infection and outcome. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 11 published cases of linezolid use for Nocardia spp. infections. The predominant species isolated were N. asteroides (n = 4; 36%) and N. farcinica (n = 3; 27%). Nocardiosis with central nervous system involvement (n = 7; 64%) or disseminated disease (n = 4; 36%) were most common. The main reason for discontinuation of previous antimicrobials was most often related to adverse effects (n = 5; 45%), followed by clinical failure (n = 3; 27%). Linezolid was associated with cure or improvement in all cases (n = 11; 100%). However, the majority of patients developed serious complications that may have led to premature discontinuation of therapy with linezolid, including myelosuppression (n = 5; 45%) or possible/confirmed peripheral neuropathy (n = 2; 18%). CONCLUSIONS: The limited published data suggest that linezolid appears to be an effective alternative to trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole for the treatment of nocardiosis. Unfortunately, the high cost and potentially serious long-term toxicities of linezolid appear to limit its use and relegate it to salvage therapy alone or in combination with other antimicrobials.

Economic evaluation of linezolid versus teicoplanin for the treatment of infections caused by gram-positive microorganisms in Spain.

The aim of this study was to perform a comparative cost-effectiveness analysis of linezolid vs teicoplanin (i.v., switching to oral/i.m. respectively) in Spain. A decision tree model was used with the results of a randomized, comparative, controlled clinical trial with linezolid vs teicoplanin in the treatment of infections caused by Gram-positive microorganisms, with a timeline of 31 days. The efficacy endpoint was the percentage of patients with clinical healing or improvement in their infection. Direct medical costs were included using Spanish 2005 prices. Average cost per patient, average cost-effectiveness ratio and several sensitivity analyses were carried out. In the intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis linezolid obtained a higher percentage of therapeutic success than teicoplanin (95.5% vs 87.6% respectively, p = 0.005), both with similar tolerability. The average cost per treated patient was euro 8,064.76 for linezolid vs euro 8,727.36 for teicoplanin, with an incremental cost of euro 622.59 (-7,6%). Linezolid yielded a lower average cost-effectiveness ratio, euro 8,444.78 (8,195.90 - 8,709.25) than teicoplanin, euro 9,962.74 (9,465.68 - 10,502.23), with a slight reduction in average cost per successfully treated patient of 15.2% ( euro 1,517.96). The results were robust to the sensitivity analysis. In conclusion, linezolid is a more cost-effective option than teicoplanin in the treatment of infections caused by Gram-positive microorganisms, since it offers superior clinical benefits with a lower use of associated resources.

The economic effect of oral linezolid versus intravenous vancomycin in the outpatient setting: the payer perspective.

Oral antibiotic therapy can reduce complications and costs compared with intravenous (IV) therapy. The object of this study was to determine the health economic and resource utilization effects of outpatient treatment with oral linezolid relative to IV vancomycin. Longitudinal claims data from 80 health care plans were used. Patients 18 years and older, who did not have osteomyelitis, with a pharmacy claim for linezolid or vancomycin between January 1, 2002 and March 31, 2004 were eligible. Clinical and resource utilization data were collected for 12 months before and 35 days after treatment. Patients treated with linezolid were matched with controls treated with vancomycin, based on propensity scoring. Direct medical costs paid by health plans were compared. A total of 1,048 matched pairs were identified. Demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable between groups. Patients with linezolid claims had lower resource utilization versus those with vancomycin claims during follow-up, including fewer mean physician office visits (4.1+/-5.7 vs. 8.4+/-13.8 visits; P< .001); lab/diagnostic claims (6.3+/-18.0 vs. 10.4 +/-15.2 claims; P< .001); pharmacy claims (7.3+/-8.1 vs. 13.6+/-17.4 claims; P< .001); emergency room visits (9.7% vs. 13.9%; P= .003) and hospitalization (15.3% vs. 19.1%; P= .024). Patients receiving vancomycin were more likely to be hospitalized or have an emergency room visit than patients receiving linezolid. Mean total adjusted cost was 4,707 dollars less for linezolid compared with vancomycin (8,401dollars vs. 13,108 dollars; P< .001). Similar trends were observed for patients matched based on complicated skin and soft tissue infection diagnosis. Outpatient treatment with oral linezolid was associated with significantly lower resource utilization and total medical costs compared with IV vancomycin.

Clinical and economic outcomes of oral linezolid versus intravenous vancomycin in the treatment of MRSA-complicated, lower-extremity skin and soft-tissue infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

BACKGROUND: Resistant bacteria often complicate the management of skin and soft tissue infections of the lower extremities. This open-label study compared oral linezolid and intravenous vancomycin for management of complicated skin and soft-tissue infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). METHODS: Patients aged 18 years or older with proven MRSA-related complicated skin and soft-tissue infections requiring surgical intervention were randomized to receive oral linezolid (n=30) or intravenous vancomycin (n=30) for 7 to 21 days. Clinical and microbiological outcomes, duration of hospitalization and drug treatment, and outpatient charges were determined. RESULTS: Linezolid was associated with greater rates of clinical cure and improvement (P=.015), a 3-day shorter median length of stay (P=.003), and reduced outpatient charges (P<.001). Vancomycin therapy was associated with more treatment failures and subsequent lower-extremity amputations (P=.011). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes were significantly better with linezolid than with vancomycin. Additionally, linezolid was associated with reduced length of stay and outpatient charges.

Linezolid: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in serious Gram-positive infections.

Linezolid (Zyvox), the first available oxazolidinone antibacterial agent, has good activity against Gram-positive pathogens, including multidrug-resistant organisms such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium. Randomised multicentre trials in patients with various types of serious Gram-positive infections showed that clinical cure rates with linezolid were similar to those with vancomycin or teicoplanin. In some subgroup analyses, which must be interpreted with a degree of caution, clinical advantages were noted for linezolid (e.g. versus vancomycin in confirmed MRSA nosocomial pneumonia and MRSA-complicated skin and soft tissue infections). Although generally well tolerated, gastrointestinal adverse effects are relatively common with linezolid and it has been associated with thrombocytopenia and myelosuppression. The oral bioavailability of linezolid is approximately 100%, thus allowing sequential intravenous-to-oral administration without changing the drug or dosage regimen. Healthcare resource use data from various countries indicate that this practical advantage translates into at least a trend towards reduced length of hospital stay compared with vancomycin, which may offset its several-fold higher acquisition cost. Modelled analyses from the US, despite some limitations, indicate that, compared with vancomycin, linezolid is associated with lower total hospitalisation costs for the treatment of patients with cellulitis and has a favourable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of approximately US30,000 dollars per QALY gained (2001 value) for patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia. Broadly similar results have also been reported in modelled analyses from other countries. In conclusion, for patients with serious Gram-positive infections, including those caused by suspected or proven multidrug-resistant pathogens such as MRSA, linezolid is an effective and generally well tolerated therapeutic option. Linezolid is currently the only antibacterial agent with good activity against MRSA that can be administered orally (as well as intravenously). It may be particularly useful as an alternative to vancomycin in patients who have impaired renal function, poor or no intravenous access, require outpatient therapy, or who have been unable to tolerate glycopeptides. Healthcare resource use studies and pharmacoeconomic analyses generally support the use of linezolid in some subgroups of patients, although results should be interpreted with due consideration of the study limitations.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia with linezolid or vancomycin in Spain.

UNLABELLED: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of linezolid (LIN) versus vancomycin (VAN) for the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) using a decision model analysis from the National Health System perspective. Patients and participants comprising four subgroups were analyzed: all, Gram-positive (GP), Staphylococcus aureus (SA), methicillin-resistant SA (MRSA). The treatments were LIN 600 mg i.v., every 12 hours, 10 days and VAN 1,000 mg i.v., every 12 hours 10 days. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness of LIN in terms of cost per added quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The secondary outcome was the marginal cost per year of life saved (LYS) generated by using LIN. Clinical cure and survival rates estimates were derived from a retrospective analysis of two trials comparing LIN with VAN. QALY was based on time-trade off study. Resource use and unit costs (Euros 2003) were obtained from Spanish VAP treatment and health cost databases. The additional QALY and LYS per LIN patients were 0.392; 0.688; 0.606; 1.805 and 0.471; 0.829; 0.729; 2.175 respectively, compared with those of VAN in the patients with VAP (all, GP, SA, and MRSA, respectively). The additional costs for LYS with LIN, as compared to VAN were 1,501.31; 827.63; 955.13 and 289.51 Euros, respectively. The additional cost per QALY with LIN was 1,803.87; 997.25; 1,149.00 and 348.85 Euros, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: LIN was more cost-effective than VAN in the treatment of VAP in Spain, with an additional cost per QALY/LYS gained below the acceptable threshold in Spain of Euros 30,000 for new therapies.